I know this is controversial but I can't help it...

[EmilyK]

I thought the woman he had on tonight was very good, and made the problems much clearer than the prior two nights' segments.

[Slartibartfast]

Hmm. I consider myself very conservative, and yet I have no problem hanging out on a board, or even in person with a diverse crowd, or IRL for that matter. Perhaps we are making wide spread false generalizations about a group of people (conservatives). Furthermore, not only do I not follow the Pearl's parenting advice, I don't even spank. Thank you very much.

 

I am not trying to be nasty or mean at Conservatives. My point was that it isn't a good descriptor because I know people who are Conservative but then people who are MUCH more Conservative then they are. I am not sure why it is coming across as an attack?

 

There are a lot of people who see me as Conservative but...that is only due to them being so very Liberal that I seem Conservative in comparison. What does Conservative mean exactly? No one can say for certain.

 

I know some Pagans who are more Conservative than some Conservative Christians I know. :lol:

 

I am a Christian. I do not spank either.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Sis

[LittleIzumi]

Are these not the same ones that say you can only feed the baby every 4 hrs, regardless if it acts like it is hungry. It seems as I had read there were starving deaths in relation to that advice. And hitting the infant, shudder.

 

That was written by the Ezzos, I believe. A different sort of yuck, but also yuck.

 

I would very much like to see a book published in the Christian market, detailing these cases (Lydia and Sean both) and giving an anti-'rod' case from the CC POV. I wish some writer would do that, and the proceeds could go to some charity.

 

While not refuting these exact cases, "Christlike Parenting" by Glenn Latham does very specifically & scripturally address why beating your kids is NOT Bible-based or Christlike.

 

I could not even finish the article in Secular Homeschooling linked earlier. The quotes from the Pearls' book in it made me want to vomit.

[PeacefulChaos]

So until coming on here, I had never heard of the Pearls. Was completely clueless.

I watched the videos and ... well... I don't know what to say...:001_huh:

I have never read the books by them, or much of anything by them, but if they really do advocate beating children to the extent that it is done in the scenario described, that is outright abuse. It's terrible. I'm a conservative Christian, and I don't have a problem with spanking if it is done without anger (and without a plumbing pipe or whatever that was! Seriously???) and used very sparingly. It shouldn't be the go to method of discipline, imo. I had a friend once who told me she had to spank her child multiple times a day. I couldn't help but think she really needed to find something else... and this was before I was a parent!

And the comments about pulling baby's hair if it bit while nursing?? WTD?? (Ok, I say what the devil - I'm a conservative Christian, remember...:lol:) EVERY nursing mom I've known who has had a baby do that has responded with 'Ouch!' - not yelling or anything, just a startled response, and the baby was usually like, apparently that wasn't good, and went back to nursing. They may have had to do it a few times but it isn't like the baby did it purposely to HURT the mom???? Ugh. I mean, for pity's sake. And to spank an infant (or however they word it) is in NO WAY acceptable. Period.

Anyway. Just a little chiming in from another conservative-Christian Pearl dissenter. (I think I worded that the way I want it to come across...) :D

[Ellesmere]

That was written by the Ezzos, I believe. A different sort of yuck, but also yuck.

.

I'm no fan of the Ezzos, but to be accurate, they do not tell parents to only feed every four hours. They actually argue against doing that, if I recall correctly.

 

They teach that parents should feed as often as necessary and work towards feeding at 2.5 hour intervals in the early weeks, and then at 3 hour intervals, with naps occurring before feedings, and not after.

 

Not to split hairs but there is a lot to legitimately criticize about the teachings in both the Ezzo and Pearl books. Exaggerations or false claims about them just harden those who could be reached with the truth. And I do believe their teachings are reprehensible.

[Heather in Neverland]

 

So, again, you and I agree. People are going to start thinking we're up to something, Heather. ;)

 

:lol::lol::lol:snort:lol::lol::lol:

[LittleIzumi]

I'm no fan of the Ezzos, but to be accurate, they do not tell parents to only feed every four hours. They actually argue against doing that, if I recall correctly.

 

They teach that parents should feed as often as necessary and work towards feeding at 2.5 hour intervals in the early weeks, and then at 3 hour intervals, with naps occurring before feedings, and not after.

 

Not to split hairs but there is a lot to legitimately criticize about the teachings in both the Ezzo and Pearl books. Exaggerations or false claims about them just harden those who could be reached with the truth. And I do believe their teachings are reprehensible.

 

Do the Pearls teach anything about feeding? I haven't read the Ezzos' book, just am familiar with the basic idea/some quotes, so that's who sprang to mind. Thanks for clarifying.

[Heather in Neverland]

"My granddaughters laugh with joy after giving their baby dolls a spanking for “being naughty†because they know their dolls will grow up to be the best mamas and daddies in the world—just like them."

 

This is from Michael Pearl's blog.

 

This makes me want to VOMIT.

[EmilyK]

The thing I realized seeing the segment on AC360 tonight is that this isn't about spanking as most folks I know would define it. I'm in a culture where no one spanks, or at least admits it. But a lot of us secretly know that we've swatted a toddler's bum when they've done something dangerous, or forcibly put a kid in time out. Those aren't my finest parenting moments but aren't the worst things either.

 

What I didn't fully realize until tonight is that has nothing to do with what they are advocating. The survivor tonight (didn't catch her name) said the point was to get the kids to the point of total submission and docility, even if it took hours of beating. And that a kid squirming or crying during beating would be a sign of resistance. It was totally chilling. The Pearls did not admit to that with Gary Tuchman. It is a totally different animal from what most parents or adults mean when they mention spanking or even corporal punishment.

 

And that they don't know any adults who weren't beaten severely like this who are well-behaved and well-adjusted? I'm kind of surprised Gary T didn't laugh since I'm sure that applied to him, and his kids if he has any. That was so insular and strange.

[Retired]

For those not familiar with the book here are few more words of wisdom from the Pearls

:ack2:

On switching their own four-month-old daughter (p.9).

 

At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of “No†with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree.

 

On p.60 they recommend switching babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them “to get up.â€

 

But what of the grouch who would rather complain than sleep? Get tough. Be firm with him. Never put him down and then allow him to get up. If, after putting him down, you remember he just woke up, do not reward his complaining by allowing him to get up.For the sake of consistency in training, you must follow through. He may not be able to sleep, but he can be trained to lie there quietly. He will very quickly come to know that any time he is laid down there is no alternative but to stay put. To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down.

 

On p.79 they recommend whipping a seven-month-old for screaming:

 

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down ****ation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby’s face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, “What can I do?†My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, “Switch him.†The mother responded, “I can’t, he’s too little.†With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, “If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.â€

 

On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a fifteen-month-old she is babysitting, ten separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with.

 

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do–he humbled himself before the “highest†and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores.

 

On p.56 Debi Pearl trades blows with a two-year-old:

 

This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside.

 

On p.59 they recommend whipping a three-year-old until he is “totally brokenâ€:

 

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, “Johnny, clean up your mess.†He should very contritely wipe up the water.

[Liz CA]

This happened in the area I used to live. When it happened I still lived in the county.

I have to say that I blame the parents who beat their poor girl to death with plumbing pipes. Regardless of what they read, heard, someone told them, if one has lost all judgment (which they obviously had since this child was beaten for hours) they are not sane and fit parents. It is a tragedy that one child had to die for the other children to be taken from them.

 

I personally had only heard of the "Pearls" here and there and have never read any of their material but even if the books advocate beatings like this couple administered to their daughter, it is still the parents who actually did it and not the Pearls. Discernment and sound judgment are essential when evaluating which advice to follow because there will always be good and bad advice regarding anything.

As Mike Ramsey said, no matter what the Pearls wrote, they are protected by the first amendment right. It is unlikely anything will happen to them.

[Liz CA]

Absolutely disgusting. Seven hours? They beat her for 7 hours????? I'm in tears.

 

Yes, with pvc pipes.

[Heather in Neverland]

For those not familiar with the book here are few more words of wisdom from the Pearls

:ack2:

On switching their own four-month-old daughter (p.9).

 

At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of “No†with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree.

 

On p.60 they recommend switching babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them “to get up.â€

 

But what of the grouch who would rather complain than sleep? Get tough. Be firm with him. Never put him down and then allow him to get up. If, after putting him down, you remember he just woke up, do not reward his complaining by allowing him to get up.For the sake of consistency in training, you must follow through. He may not be able to sleep, but he can be trained to lie there quietly. He will very quickly come to know that any time he is laid down there is no alternative but to stay put. To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down.

 

On p.79 they recommend whipping a seven-month-old for screaming:

 

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down ****ation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby’s face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, “What can I do?†My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, “Switch him.†The mother responded, “I can’t, he’s too little.†With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, “If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.â€

 

On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a fifteen-month-old she is babysitting, ten separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with.

 

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do–he humbled himself before the “highest†and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores.

 

On p.56 Debi Pearl trades blows with a two-year-old:

 

This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside.

 

On p.59 they recommend whipping a three-year-old until he is “totally brokenâ€:

 

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, “Johnny, clean up your mess.†He should very contritely wipe up the water.

 

There are no words.

[Annabel Lee]

I believe strongly in personal responsibility and fact is that the Pearls do not advocate 7 hour torture sessions that end in death. The parents were out of control. Of course, then there are considerations of why these two particular children, but that is another topic.]

 

I wondered if anyone else noticed this too. It appears that only the adopted children were subjected to this. No mention was made of it happening to their biological children.

 

Exactly. Though repulsive practice for any parent-child relationship, the Pearl's teachings will do even more damage in an adoption situation with attachment issues. The methods are based on a combination of fear and the child's inborn desire to please & be emotionally connected to the parent. Some children with attachment issues (this happens a lot in adoption) couldn't give a flying finch if they please or feel connected to anyone, esp. those in authority over them. It exasperates a situation that is already in need of healing.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Annabel Lee
"inventive" spelling ;P

[Pamela H in Texas]

*****On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a fifteen-month-old she is babysitting, ten separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with.

 

*****On p.59 they recommend whipping a three-year-old until he is “totally broken”:

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, “Johnny, clean up your mess.” He should very contritely wipe up the water.

Reply With Quote

 

Have the Pearls never met a truly challenging child?

 

See, the above seems really rough. But let's take a TRULY challenging child. My son or a little girl with attachment issues or....Then what? The Pearls claim they don't tell people to beat their children for seven hours, but the above sounds like you better keep going until the child submits. That little girl wouldn't in seven hours. Is death really the consequence? Is that acceptable to them?

 

So do they currently have, or will they add to the next book, a blurb on when enough is enough? I doubt it. But I do think you have to consider EVERY situation when you are giving advice such as the above. And one of those situations includes desperate parents hoping to make a difference with *very* challenging kids who just will NOT submit within 10 spankings. Then what?!?!

[ByGrace3]

"My granddaughters laugh with joy after giving their baby dolls a spanking for “being naughty†because they know their dolls will grow up to be the best mamas and daddies in the world—just like them."

 

This is from Michael Pearl's blog.

 

This makes me want to VOMIT.

 

ICK :ack2: I read that on their blog and was horrified.

 

For those not familiar with the book here are few more words of wisdom from the Pearls

:ack2:

On switching their own four-month-old daughter (p.9).

 

At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of “No†with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree.

 

On p.60 they recommend switching babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them “to get up.â€

 

But what of the grouch who would rather complain than sleep? Get tough. Be firm with him. Never put him down and then allow him to get up. If, after putting him down, you remember he just woke up, do not reward his complaining by allowing him to get up.For the sake of consistency in training, you must follow through. He may not be able to sleep, but he can be trained to lie there quietly. He will very quickly come to know that any time he is laid down there is no alternative but to stay put. To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down.

 

On p.79 they recommend whipping a seven-month-old for screaming:

 

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down ****ation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby’s face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, “What can I do?†My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, “Switch him.†The mother responded, “I can’t, he’s too little.†With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, “If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.â€

 

On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a fifteen-month-old she is babysitting, ten separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with.

 

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do–he humbled himself before the “highest†and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores.

 

On p.56 Debi Pearl trades blows with a two-year-old:

 

This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside.

 

On p.59 they recommend whipping a three-year-old until he is “totally brokenâ€:

 

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, “Johnny, clean up your mess.†He should very contritely wipe up the water.

 

This seriously brings tears to my eyes. I am sick. HOW can ANYONE say that is NOT abuse?!?!?!?

[twoforjoy]

I'm no fan of the Ezzos, but to be accurate, they do not tell parents to only feed every four hours. They actually argue against doing that, if I recall correctly.

 

They teach that parents should feed as often as necessary and work towards feeding at 2.5 hour intervals in the early weeks, and then at 3 hour intervals, with naps occurring before feedings, and not after.

 

Not to split hairs but there is a lot to legitimately criticize about the teachings in both the Ezzo and Pearl books. Exaggerations or false claims about them just harden those who could be reached with the truth. And I do believe their teachings are reprehensible.

 

AFAIK, the Ezzos changed their advice, which originally was pretty rigid about 3-4 hour feeding intervals from birth, in response to reports that babies were failing to thrive when their advice was followed.

 

I have lots of problems with the Ezzos, probably chiefly the self-righteousness their advice breeds in those with compliant children and the sense of failure it breeds in those with difficult kids. But, at least when they were presented with evidence that their advice was being used in a way that was harming children, they made changes. That's something.

 

I don't expect the Pearls to be doing that any time soon. I really don't think we'll be seeing a disclaimer in later editions that, if your child isn't broken after x amount of time, you should probably discontinue the beating lest you kill them.

[poolehall]

I'm completely turned off by their arrogance and see their methods as abusive. BTW, if I had a 9 yo who tried to tell an adult how to parent their child the way the Pearl's 9yo did, she would be told by me that she needs to mind her own business. The Pearls taught their kids to be know-it-alls by allowing that kind of behavior, imho.

[Ellesmere]

Do the Pearls teach anything about feeding? I haven't read the Ezzos' book, just am familiar with the basic idea/some quotes, so that's who sprang to mind. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't know if the Pearls teach about feeding routines. My best guess is that anything they teach in regards to infant care is going to amount to the parent having absolute control over the baby's feeding. Again, that's only a guess. Sadly, I was not at all surprised by what Debi said about infants that bite.

AFAIK, the Ezzos changed their advice, which originally was pretty rigid about 3-4 hour feeding intervals from birth, in response to reports that babies were failing to thrive when their advice was followed.

 

I have lots of problems with the Ezzos, probably chiefly the self-righteousness their advice breeds in those with compliant children and the sense of failure it breeds in those with difficult kids. But, at least when they were presented with evidence that their advice was being used in a way that was harming children, they made changes. That's something.

 

I don't expect the Pearls to be doing that any time soon. I really don't think we'll be seeing a disclaimer in later editions that, if your child isn't broken after x amount of time, you should probably discontinue the beating lest you kill them.

Thanks for mentioning that. I saw an older edition of an Ezzo book that condemned both feeding on demand and feeding strictly by the clock. But that edition was more rigid about feeding intervals from birth. Their later edition was changed. If I remember correctly they advised that for the first two weeks, parents should pay no attention to the feeding intervals and feed as often as the baby seems hungry and never go longer than a certain amount of time (2.5 hours?) during feedings. But after that, the parents should work towards getting the child on regular feeding intervals. And, (again, if I recall correctly), their advice differs from the Pearls in regards to swatting. I think the Ezzos advised a parent to swat a child's hand once if the child touched something they weren't supposed to, up to two separate times. If the child returned to the object, the parent was to distract or remove the child from the room to play somewhere else but not to swat more than twice.

 

I will also give them credit for making a change that the Pearls aren't likely to make. But, like you, I still have problems with the way the Ezzos present their teachings. And I have issues with the ways their teachings are presented in certain church settings, which may not be their fault. But in the end, I find both the Pearls and the Ezzos to be repulsive.

[kalanamak]

AFAIK, the Ezzos changed their advice, which originally was pretty rigid about 3-4 hour feeding intervals from birth, in response to reports that babies were failing to thrive when their advice was followed.

 

I have lots of problems with the Ezzos, probably chiefly the self-righteousness their advice breeds in those with compliant children and the sense of failure it breeds in those with difficult kids. But, at least when they were presented with evidence that their advice was being used in a way that was harming children, they made changes. That's something.

 

I don't expect the Pearls to be doing that any time soon. I really don't think we'll be seeing a disclaimer in later editions that, if your child isn't broken after x amount of time, you should probably discontinue the beating lest you kill them.

 

Good post.

 

Or keep them from "getting up" by bundling them so tightly they suffocate. I'm blanking on that little boy's name.

[Abigail4476]

For those not familiar with the book here are few more words of wisdom from the Pearls

:ack2:

On switching their own four-month-old daughter (p.9).

 

At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of “No†with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree.

 

On p.60 they recommend switching babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them “to get up.â€

 

But what of the grouch who would rather complain than sleep? Get tough. Be firm with him. Never put him down and then allow him to get up. If, after putting him down, you remember he just woke up, do not reward his complaining by allowing him to get up.For the sake of consistency in training, you must follow through. He may not be able to sleep, but he can be trained to lie there quietly. He will very quickly come to know that any time he is laid down there is no alternative but to stay put. To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down.

 

On p.79 they recommend whipping a seven-month-old for screaming:

 

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down ****ation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby’s face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, “What can I do?†My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, “Switch him.†The mother responded, “I can’t, he’s too little.†With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, “If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.â€

 

On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a fifteen-month-old she is babysitting, ten separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with.

 

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do–he humbled himself before the “highest†and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores.

 

On p.56 Debi Pearl trades blows with a two-year-old:

 

This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside.

 

On p.59 they recommend whipping a three-year-old until he is “totally brokenâ€:

 

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, “Johnny, clean up your mess.†He should very contritely wipe up the water.

 

Tears and nausea at the same time. I'm still horrified. :(

[Abigail4476]

For those not familiar with the book here are few more words of wisdom from the Pearls

:ack2:

On switching their own four-month-old daughter (p.9).

 

At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of “No†with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree.

 

On p.60 they recommend switching babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them “to get up.â€

 

But what of the grouch who would rather complain than sleep? Get tough. Be firm with him. Never put him down and then allow him to get up. If, after putting him down, you remember he just woke up, do not reward his complaining by allowing him to get up.For the sake of consistency in training, you must follow through. He may not be able to sleep, but he can be trained to lie there quietly. He will very quickly come to know that any time he is laid down there is no alternative but to stay put. To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down.

 

On p.79 they recommend whipping a seven-month-old for screaming:

 

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down ****ation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby’s face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, “What can I do?†My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, “Switch him.†The mother responded, “I can’t, he’s too little.†With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, “If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.â€

 

On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a fifteen-month-old she is babysitting, ten separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with.

 

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do–he humbled himself before the “highest†and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores.

 

On p.56 Debi Pearl trades blows with a two-year-old:

 

This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside.

 

On p.59 they recommend whipping a three-year-old until he is “totally brokenâ€:

 

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, “Johnny, clean up your mess.†He should very contritely wipe up the water.

 

I hope you don't mind...I swiped some of these excerpts for my fb page. I don't have a copy of the book and don't want to buy one....

[Guest momk2000]

This all turns my stomach. I couldn't imagine ever following their twisted advice. It certainly is not Biblical. This child abuse manual should be banned. :glare:

[Soror]

AFAIK, the Ezzos changed their advice, which originally was pretty rigid about 3-4 hour feeding intervals from birth, in response to reports that babies were failing to thrive when their advice was followed.

 

I have lots of problems with the Ezzos, probably chiefly the self-righteousness their advice breeds in those with compliant children and the sense of failure it breeds in those with difficult kids. But, at least when they were presented with evidence that their advice was being used in a way that was harming children, they made changes. That's something.

 

I don't expect the Pearls to be doing that any time soon. I really don't think we'll be seeing a disclaimer in later editions that, if your child isn't broken after x amount of time, you should probably discontinue the beating lest you kill them.

Ah, well, thanks for clarifying I was going on vague memory. I had a friend and she was very strict on the 4 hr schedule. The new baby is at least on 3 hr, which is better. I guess unfortunately those revisions don't always make it to people. It'd be better of course if they would drop the ridiculous notion to put bf babies on timers anyway. I've seen the hunger cues of babies ignored so many times. I've wondered if they tell them to ignore them or if they are not aware that crying is the last hunger cue and there were likely a dozen before then.

[dangermom]

 

I wondered if anyone else noticed this too. It appears that only the adopted children were subjected to this. No mention was made of it happening to their biological children.

It's my understanding that they did beat their bio-children as well, but those children had been used to it since infancy and had learned how to live in the system--either their wills had been broken long ago or they knew how to act in ways that would not lead to long sessions of beatings, or both.

[PeacefulChaos]

For those not familiar with the book here are few more words of wisdom from the Pearls

 

On switching their own four-month-old daughter (p.9).

 

At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of “No” with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree.

 

On p.60 they recommend switching babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them “to get up.”

 

But what of the grouch who would rather complain than sleep? Get tough. Be firm with him. Never put him down and then allow him to get up. If, after putting him down, you remember he just woke up, do not reward his complaining by allowing him to get up.For the sake of consistency in training, you must follow through. He may not be able to sleep, but he can be trained to lie there quietly. He will very quickly come to know that any time he is laid down there is no alternative but to stay put. To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down.

 

On p.79 they recommend whipping a seven-month-old for screaming:

 

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down ****ation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby’s face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, “What can I do?” My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, “Switch him.” The mother responded, “I can’t, he’s too little.” With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, “If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.”

 

On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a fifteen-month-old she is babysitting, ten separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with.

 

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do–he humbled himself before the “highest” and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores.

 

On p.56 Debi Pearl trades blows with a two-year-old:

 

This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside.

 

On p.59 they recommend whipping a three-year-old until he is “totally broken”:

 

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, “Johnny, clean up your mess.” He should very contritely wipe up the water.

 

:svengo::eek::thumbdown::ack2::ohmy::crying::mad:

Yeah, I couldn't find an emoticon to express what I feel about all that they said there. These don't even scratch the surface.

 

And regarding the feeding every 3-4 hours, why is that a bad thing??? :huh: All three of my kids ate every 2.5-3 hours when they were born, and then over time spread out to every 4 hours. Usually somewhere around 9-12 months. I wasn't aware that was abuse???????

Edited August 18, 2011 by PeacefulChaos

[Nakia]

For those not familiar with the book here are few more words of wisdom from the Pearls

:ack2:

On switching their own four-month-old daughter (p.9).

 

At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of “No†with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree.

 

On p.60 they recommend switching babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them “to get up.â€

 

But what of the grouch who would rather complain than sleep? Get tough. Be firm with him. Never put him down and then allow him to get up. If, after putting him down, you remember he just woke up, do not reward his complaining by allowing him to get up.For the sake of consistency in training, you must follow through. He may not be able to sleep, but he can be trained to lie there quietly. He will very quickly come to know that any time he is laid down there is no alternative but to stay put. To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down.

 

On p.79 they recommend whipping a seven-month-old for screaming:

 

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down ****ation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby’s face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, “What can I do?†My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, “Switch him.†The mother responded, “I can’t, he’s too little.†With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, “If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.â€

 

On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a fifteen-month-old she is babysitting, ten separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with.

 

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do–he humbled himself before the “highest†and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores.

 

On p.56 Debi Pearl trades blows with a two-year-old:

 

This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside.

 

On p.59 they recommend whipping a three-year-old until he is “totally brokenâ€:

 

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, “Johnny, clean up your mess.†He should very contritely wipe up the water.

 

Sweet Jesus. Those people are sick. They need help. I don't even know what else to say.

[twoforjoy]

And regarding the feeding every 3-4 hours, why is that a bad thing??? :huh: All three of my kids ate every 2.5-3 hours when they were born, and then over time spread out to every 4 hours. Usually somewhere around 9-12 months. I wasn't aware that was abuse???????

 

My kids tend to go a while between most feedings, too, even as newborns. But they've all been pretty big (8-9 lbs.) and I've had a really good milk supply. I've never tried to get my newborns on any kind of schedule, though. My son right now eats completely erratically. He'll go 4-5 hours between some feedings, and then has one or two 2-3 hour periods each day where he seems to want to eat every 45 minutes. My daughter did the same thing.

 

I think the concern is that babies were failing to thrive, because they weren't being fed as often as they needed--some need to feed much more often than every 3 or 4 hours--and moms were having supply issues related to not having frequent enough feedings. Again, I might be wrong, but it's my understanding that they used to promote the 3-4 hour schedule for all babies, from birth, regardless of hunger cues (or not really saying anything about paying attention to hunger cues).

[Soror]

My kids tend to go a while between most feedings, too, even as newborns. But they've all been pretty big (8-9 lbs.) and I've had a really good milk supply. I've never tried to get my newborns on any kind of schedule, though. My son right now eats completely erratically. He'll go 4-5 hours between some feedings, and then has one or two 2-3 hour periods each day where he seems to want to eat every 45 minutes. My daughter did the same thing.

 

I think the concern is that babies were failing to thrive, because they weren't being fed as often as they needed--some need to feed much more often than every 3 or 4 hours--and moms were having supply issues related to not having frequent enough feedings. Again, I might be wrong, but it's my understanding that they used to promote the 3-4 hour schedule for all babies, from birth, regardless of hunger cues (or not really saying anything about paying attention to hunger cues).

Yes, it is the ignoring of the cues and saying that all babies can go that long from birth, that is really dangerous. As I said I've seen the babies throwing up cue after cue and the Moms say, well it hasn't been 4 hrs , they're not hungry.

[Hedgehog]

And regarding the feeding every 3-4 hours, why is that a bad thing??? :huh: All three of my kids ate every 2.5-3 hours when they were born, and then over time spread out to every 4 hours. Usually somewhere around 9-12 months. I wasn't aware that was abuse???????

 

It's not, if your baby wants that. Some do, some don't. The issue is if moms are trying to make their babies wait for feeds so that they can stick to a rigid schedule, and in doing so interfere with the natural process of supply and demand (which I'm sure I don't need to explain!).

 

IMO the problem with all these (possibly well-meant?) baby schedule type books is that the baby hasn't read the book. It's noticeable that in countries where women are supported to breastfeed, where it's assumed that every woman can, where no-one is bothered about clock-watching, and where there isn't much of pushing any other ideas, 99.5% of women breastfeed successfully and for an extended period of time.

[kalanamak]

As I said I've seen the babies throwing up cue after cue and the Moms say, well it hasn't been 4 hrs , they're not hungry.

 

I once left a party because I couldn't stand to watch the hungry twins any more. It made me sick. GM was right there adamantly refusing anyone feeding them. Sucking their fists like mad and fussing.

[Ellesmere]

I think the concern is that babies were failing to thrive, because they weren't being fed as often as they needed--some need to feed much more often than every 3 or 4 hours--and moms were having supply issues related to not having frequent enough feedings. Again, I might be wrong, but it's my understanding that they used to promote the 3-4 hour schedule for all babies, from birth, regardless of hunger cues (or not really saying anything about paying attention to hunger cues).

 

And regarding the feeding every 3-4 hours, why is that a bad thing??? :huh: All three of my kids ate every 2.5-3 hours when they were born, and then over time spread out to every 4 hours. Usually somewhere around 9-12 months. I wasn't aware that was abuse???????

Not to totally derail away from the Pearls, but just to clarify again. I could be wrong, but I think even the earlier (although maybe not the first, but the one I saw had the cassette tapes) edition of the Ezzo teachings instructed feeding intervals as close to every 2.5 hours from the start of the first feeding to the beginning of the next, with a nap at the end of every cycle.

 

If the baby appeared hungry earlier, they were to feed but work towards stretching the intervals. The key word in their teaching is routine -- even this book did not teach being a slave to the clock. Obviously some adherents to the Ezzo books do become clock slaves.

 

One major reason for the feeding intervals and feeding/wake/nap cycle was in order to promote sleeping through the night in a crib by 8-12 weeks. The Ezzos were vehemently against any kind of co-sleeping and basically, you failed as a parent if your child didn't sleep through the night by their guidelines. The teachings seem quite different from the Pearls but all give with what seems to be the same arrogance and ignorance. And the books are used by spiritual leaders in abhorrent ways.

[Melissa in Australia]

. It's noticeable that in countries where women are supported to breastfeed, where it's assumed that every woman can, where no-one is bothered about clock-watching, and where there isn't much of pushing any other ideas, 99.5% of women breastfeed successfully and for an extended period of time.

 

 

:iagree: I live in a Country that actively encourages breastfeeding. it is nothing to undo your shirt and sit pretty much bear-chested and feed your baby. Right from birth the hospital encourages you to feed the baby, every opportunity that the baby wants to be fed. the hospital where my children was born even places the crib in the room right beside the mother, and actively encourages the mother to have the baby in the bed with her so she can feed the baby more often.

[Scarlett]

Not to totally derail away from the Pearls, but just to clarify again. I could be wrong, but I think even the earlier (although maybe not the first, but the one I saw had the cassette tapes) edition of the Ezzo teachings instructed feeding intervals as close to every 2.5 hours from the start of the first feeding to the beginning of the next, with a nap at the end of every cycle.

 

If the baby appeared hungry earlier, they were to feed but work towards stretching the intervals. The key word in their teaching is routine -- even this book did not teach being a slave to the clock. Obviously some adherents to the Ezzo books do become clock slaves.

 

One major reason for the feeding intervals and feeding/wake/nap cycle was in order to promote sleeping through the night in a crib by 8-12 weeks. The Ezzos were vehemently against any kind of co-sleeping and basically, you failed as a parent if your child didn't sleep through the night by their guidelines. The teachings seem quite different from the Pearls but all give with what seems to be the same arrogance and ignorance. And the books are used by spiritual leaders in abhorrent ways.

 

I haven't read all replies, but I did read On Becoming Baby Wise and it made my life so much easier. I didn't get the 'horror' part of it...but apparently it was there! As I do many things I take the good and leave the bad so maybe I skimmed the book and missed a lot of that. IDK.

 

What I got out of OBBW was the routine. Certainly not to deprive my infant.

 

I also don't know what is wrong with parents who let ANY one or ANY book convince them to harm their child. Why doesn't natural instinct kick in?

[jewellsmommy]

I'm not really trying to offer a rebuttal to you, but it really bothers me the way "conservative Christians" are portrayed. I know you said "sub-set". However, I know there is a very large majority of "conservative Christians" that think they (the Pearls) are quacks! All too often, whether it be here on these boards or elsewhere, as soon as a crazy idea comes up, it's the "conservative Christians". That is unfair. Extremists or legalists is more accurate.

 

It's not just me. There are way more "conservative Christians" than not, that find nothing seductive at all about them or their teachings, and have the intelligence, Biblical knowledge and understanding, and common sense not to fall into the Pearl's cultish trap.

 

 

I agree. I too am what I would refer to as a Christian on the conservative side :D and I go to a southern baptist church and attend a co-op that is church run. Even with this being the 'circle' I run in, I have not ever come across the Pearls. I have not heard of their teaching. Our church has never promoted any form of discipline over another.

 

So, I would say either we are the wrong type of conservative christian or the Pearls aren't as prevalent in these circles as thought or once were.

 

I also do not believe that I could be persuaded to beat a child for any amt of time just because I read it in a book. Obviously, there are people who have been conditioned to be that easily manipulated. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be that way just because one chooses a more conservative route.

[PeacefulChaos]

My kids tend to go a while between most feedings, too, even as newborns. But they've all been pretty big (8-9 lbs.) and I've had a really good milk supply. I've never tried to get my newborns on any kind of schedule, though. My son right now eats completely erratically. He'll go 4-5 hours between some feedings, and then has one or two 2-3 hour periods each day where he seems to want to eat every 45 minutes. My daughter did the same thing.

 

I think the concern is that babies were failing to thrive, because they weren't being fed as often as they needed--some need to feed much more often than every 3 or 4 hours--and moms were having supply issues related to not having frequent enough feedings. Again, I might be wrong, but it's my understanding that they used to promote the 3-4 hour schedule for all babies, from birth, regardless of hunger cues (or not really saying anything about paying attention to hunger cues).

 

I see. My kids were a little on the bigger side, too (smallest was DD, at 8lb 4oz, up to 9lb 2oz - DS5) so that may have had something to do with it. I didn't breastfeed, either, so idk if that makes a difference. I just remember always 'hearing' (from non experts, so may be completely untrue!) that bf babies needed to eat more often or something. Idk.

I must admit, I'm really glad my kids did their own schedule of every 3 hours. :D They knew their mama well... :lol:

[Ellesmere]

I haven't read all replies, but I did read On Becoming Baby Wise and it made my life so much easier. I didn't get the 'horror' part of it...but apparently it was there! As I do many things I take the good and leave the bad so maybe I skimmed the book and missed a lot of that. IDK.

 

What I got out of OBBW was the routine. Certainly not to deprive my infant.

 

I also don't know what is wrong with parents who let ANY one or ANY book convince them to harm their child. Why doesn't natural instinct kick in?

If I recall correctly, On Becoming Baby Wise is the version of the book without Scripture references to it.

 

The Ezzos had the same teachings repackaged with Bible verses to support their teachings and I think the name of that program was Growing Kids God's Way or Preparation for Parenting.

 

I have read other non-religious books with somewhat similar feeding ideas (feed on a routine, not on a schedule or every hour), too.

 

I think you got exactly what OBBW was meant to teach: routine. The Ezzos do not teach ignoring the baby's hunger cues. They teach that a parent should work to get the baby on a routine and sleeping through the night. FWIW, I don't have an issue with routines themselves, but I do have issues with the way their GKGW and Prep for Parenting materials are written.

 

(ETA: My major issue would be that the Ezzos start with (in GKGW) the premise that a newborn is a selfish sinner that needs to be taught to obey the first time, every time. They would say, and I would disagree, that an infant's cry in the night for cuddles or impatient cry for food is an example of selfishness. I'm guessing the Pearls also would say an infant is a little sinner that needs to be swatted. I know people that think it is cute to call their babies "little sinners/heathens" as they watch them cry for a diaper change. ETA again: I guessed wrong. The Pearls do not share that belief.)

 

What is wrong with parents that let a book convince them to harm a child? Well, first I'd say that it isn't just a book. It is the atmosphere the person is immersed in while they read this stuff. It is the spiritual leaders manipulating and controlling, mostly with sincere but very misguided intentions. What else could be wrong? Ignorance, a spiritually abusive upbringing, a small social circle with little diversity, and their own weaknesses, perhaps. IMO, it's not the book. It's the way that their materials are sometimes used in churches. Someone with a healthy, strong heart and mind could read something like these books and appropriately filter. Not everyone has such strength.

 

Does any of that make sense? I know I'm not saying the popular thing.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Clairelise

[Runningmom80]

What is wrong with parents that let a book convince them to harm a child? Well, first I'd say that it isn't just a book. It is the atmosphere the person is immersed in while they read this stuff. It is the spiritual leaders manipulating and controlling, mostly with sincere but very misguided intentions. What else could be wrong? Ignorance, a spiritually abusive upbringing, a small social circle with little diversity, and their own weaknesses, perhaps. IMO, it's not the book. It's the way that their materials are sometimes used in churches. Someone with a healthy, strong heart and mind could read something like these books and appropriately filter. Not everyone has such strength.

 

Does any of that make sense? I know I'm not saying the popular thing.

 

It makes perfect sense, and I agree 100%

[Joanne]

Originally Posted by JulieH

I'm not really trying to offer a rebuttal to you, but it really bothers me the way "conservative Christians" are portrayed. I know you said "sub-set". However, I know there is a very large majority of "conservative Christians" that think they (the Pearls) are quacks! All too often, whether it be here on these boards or elsewhere, as soon as a crazy idea comes up, it's the "conservative Christians". That is unfair. Extremists or legalists is more accurate.

 

It's not just me. There are way more "conservative Christians" than not, that find nothing seductive at all about them or their teachings, and have the intelligence, Biblical knowledge and understanding, and common sense not to fall into the Pearl's cultish trap.

 

 

IQ, knowledge, and level of intelligence does not correspond to vulnerability towards abuse, or towards cultishness.

 

There are thousands of smart people who follow the Pearls, for complicated psychological reasons, and who ARE influenced by the seductiveness of writings that promise saved, obedient children.

 

Ok, so it's not YOU or people in your circle. But they do exist, and in alarming numbers. Just look at his thread; many posters talked about the books being handed out. The people who support the Pearls in droves (including several on this board) are not stupid, under-educated, or ignorant.

 

Being subject to abuse, or towards a paradigm that is abusive, is not easily explained-away by "intelligence" or "common sense".

 

Personally, I find MANY Christian parenting and family writers on the same continuum as the Pearls.

[KungFuPanda]

The people who support the Pearls in droves (including several on this board) are not stupid, under-educated, or ignorant.

 

 

I grant you one out of three.

[Scarlett]

If I recall correctly, On Becoming Baby Wise is the version of the book without Scripture references to it.

 

The Ezzos had the same teachings repackaged with Bible verses to support their teachings and I think the name of that program was Growing Kids God's Way or Preparation for Parenting.

 

I have read other non-religious books with somewhat similar feeding ideas (feed on a routine, not on a schedule or every hour), too.

 

I think you got exactly what OBBW was meant to teach: routine. The Ezzos do not teach ignoring the baby's hunger cues. They teach that a parent should work to get the baby on a routine and sleeping through the night. FWIW, I don't have an issue with routines themselves, but I do have issues with the way their GKGW and Prep for Parenting materials are written.

 

(ETA: My major issue would be that the Ezzos start with (in GKGW) the premise that a newborn is a selfish sinner that needs to be taught to obey the first time, every time. They would say, and I would disagree, that an infant's cry in the night for cuddles or impatient cry for food is an example of selfishness. I'm guessing the Pearls also would say an infant is a little sinner that needs to be swatted. I know people that think it is cute to call their babies "little sinners/heathens" as they watch them cry for a diaper change.)

 

What is wrong with parents that let a book convince them to harm a child? Well, first I'd say that it isn't just a book. It is the atmosphere the person is immersed in while they read this stuff. It is the spiritual leaders manipulating and controlling, mostly with sincere but very misguided intentions. What else could be wrong? Ignorance, a spiritually abusive upbringing, a small social circle with little diversity, and their own weaknesses, perhaps. IMO, it's not the book. It's the way that their materials are sometimes used in churches. Someone with a healthy, strong heart and mind could read something like these books and appropriately filter. Not everyone has such strength.

 

Does any of that make sense? I know I'm not saying the popular thing.

 

Yes it makes perfect sense. This is the most balanced explanation of the Pearl/Ezzo disastor I've every read.

[Orthodox6]

Does anyone know whether the author of "Managers of Their Homes" espouses the teachings of either the Pearls or the Ezzos? I remember buying the book some years ago, and quickly deciding that the author was a "crockpot". What she wrote was nowhere near so spiritually disturbing as the P's and E's; however, she included some wacko (I believe they are) child-rearing principles, esp for babies.

 

P.S. Asking this merely from curiosity. Much of the book would be quite useful for a family amenable to that style of organization.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Orthodox6

[pdalley]

I never got that from the Maxwells. I have Homeschooling with a Meek and Quiet Spirit, Managers of their Homes, Chores and Schools and I don't see anything about the Pearls or that type of philosophy as far as discipline.

[Joanne]

Does anyone know whether the author of "Managers of Their Homes" espouses the teachings of either the Pearls or the Ezzos? I remember buying the book some years ago, and quickly deciding that the author was a "crockpot". What she wrote was nowhere near so spiritually disturbing as the P's and E's; however, she included some wacko (I believe they are) child-rearing principles, esp for babies.

 

I liked the homeschool schedule advice, but not the discpline or baby management advice.

[twoforjoy]

I also don't know what is wrong with parents who let ANY one or ANY book convince them to harm their child. Why doesn't natural instinct kick in?

 

I feel like these sorts of programs teach you to ignore instinct. I can see why a parent would be convinced that they can't just take what works for them after reading Ezzo or the Pearls. The authors leave no room for that.

 

I've read all of On Becoming Babywise and only skimmed TTUAC, so I can comment more on Ezzo. Ezzo leaves no room for going halfway. You are either a good Babywise parent who will raise a decent child, or a permissive parent who is going to raise a terror. There is no gray, no in-between. If you have a well-behaved child, it's because you followed Babywise right; if you don't, it's because you didn't follow it well enough.

 

Now, sure, a confident parent can probably read that and still have the good sense to take parts that might work for them and leave the rest. But a desperate, demoralized parent, especially a first-time parent, may not have the emotional resources to do that. They read that if they don't follow the plan, if they just do A but let B and C go, they are going to raise a disrespectful, disobedient child who will run roughshod over the entire rest of their lives.

 

I'm not blaming only Ezzo and the Pearls for doing this. I think there are AP proponents who also present things as though, if you don't respond immediately to your child's every cry, you are going to raise a horrid, empathy-less, self-centered monster. But the fact that both Ezzo and the Pearls are backed by church cultures that also promote the idea that they have the One True Method for raising children right makes it a bit more pernicious, I think.

[Orthodox6]

I liked the homeschool schedule advice, but not the discpline or baby management advice.

 

Exactly how I felt. The homeschool advice was not going to work for my particular family, but it did not bother me as did the other elements you cite.

[Negin]

I haven't yet had time to read this entire thread, quick question and I really don't want to hijack this thread, but long, long ago when I was pregnant with dd, dh and I read one of James Dobson's books and he, if my memory serves me correctly, suggested going for a very specific area at the base of the neck when punishing a child. I think he also said that using a wooden spoon to discipline a child is fine. I think ... does anyone know or remember any of this? I'm sure this isn't as bad as the Pearls. They scare me.

I'm just glad to not read any of this rubbish anymore. I'll stick to fiction and hopefully common-sense.

I'm not a Christian, but I am deeply religious. I have a friend who used to be Christian but was so very much against spanking, etc. He had absolutely no idea that some Christians advocate this horrible stuff. He was shocked and asked if Jesus went around beating up kids. :confused:

The whole thing just sickens me.

[twoforjoy]

I'm guessing the Pearls also would say an infant is a little sinner that needs to be swatted.

 

Actually, all the threads on this got me interested in the Pearls, and from what I've read of their theology, they actually don't think that. They think infants come into the world morally neutral. The point of training is to prepare them for the moment when they reach their "age of accountability," so they can choose rightly. But they aren't seen as sinners from birth in the Pearls' theology.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I feel like these sorts of programs teach you to ignore instinct.

 

Yes, indeed. And when that is compounded by a manipulative church or homeschool group environment full of pastors, mothers, and grandmothers insisting that all the parents use the same methods, a Mom can lose the ability to hear her own thoughts.

 

In those impossibly difficult moments at home, she isn't listening for the guidance of the Holy Spirit or for her own common-sense judgment! She can't hear those things anymore, because she is hearing all the many voices telling her 'spare the rod and spoil the child.' And so she reaches for the plumbing supply line.

 

To take it a step further, if she later shares that moment of indecision or difficulty with these mentors and friends, they will tell her she did the right thing by whacking him. Toughen up, Mama, they'll say, and save his soul from hell.

 

And so a mother's heart is hardened. First, by bad teaching, second, by choosing to continue in actions that are against her own instinct, and third, by the relentless ongoing counsel from others telling her to go against herself for the good of her child. She is rewarded by her peer group for following the plan, criticized and shunned if she won't. The mother and her children are all victims of these teachings.

 

This is not the story of all Pearl (or Ezzo) followers, nor the story of all churches where such teachings are embraced. But it certainly happens. It happened to me and to many others of my actual acquaintance.

 

Speaking to Christians here, who may have begun to doubt their own choices in mentors and teachers: The only way to begin hearing oneself again, or the voice of the Holy Spirit, is to cut one's family away from these people. Shut off the voices, throw away the books, and begin to grow in the wisdom and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Read and re-read the Sermon on the Mount and realize that the sheep will recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd. As you pore over those scriptures, it will become beautifully and abundantly clear that the voice of the Good Shepherd sounds nothing like the voices of Michael Pearl or Gary Ezzo.

 

After you have become steeped in the words of Jesus, begin to study the Bible for God's own references to mothers. The Old and New Testaments are full of beautiful imagery: God sees mothers of infants as ever patient, loving, gentle, and protecting of their little ones. You will not be able to see biblical motherhood in the same light again. God's mothers, as portrayed by the imagery and symbolism of Holy Scripture, do not carry plumbing supply line.

 

You can be delivered from a cycle of abuse. You can go back to being who you were before you heard of the Pearls.

[Retired]

Yes, indeed. And when that is compounded by a manipulative church or homeschool group environment full of pastors, mothers, and grandmothers insisting that all the parents use the same methods, a Mom can lose the ability to hear her own thoughts.

 

In those impossibly difficult moments at home, she isn't listening for the guidance of the Holy Spirit or for her own common-sense judgment! She can't hear those things anymore, because she is hearing all the many voices telling her 'spare the rod and spoil the child.' And so she reaches for the plumbing supply line.

 

To take it a step further, if she later shares that moment of indecision or difficulty with these mentors and friends, they will tell her she did the right thing by whacking him. Toughen up, Mama, they'll say, and save his soul from hell.

 

And so a mother's heart is hardened. First, by bad teaching, second, by choosing to continue in actions that are against her own instinct, and third, by the relentless ongoing counsel from others telling her to go against herself for the good of her child. She is rewarded by her peer group for following the plan, criticized and shunned if she won't. The mother and her children are all victims of these teachings.

 

This is not the story of all Pearl (or Ezzo) followers, nor the story of all churches where such teachings are embraced. But it certainly happens. It happened to me and to many others of my actual acquaintance.

 

Speaking to Christians here, who may have begun to doubt their own choices in mentors and teachers: The only way to begin hearing oneself again, or the voice of the Holy Spirit, is to cut one's family away from these people. Shut off the voices, throw away the books, and begin to grow in the wisdom and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Read and re-read the Sermon on the Mount and realize that the sheep will recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd. As you pore over those scriptures, it will become beautifully and abundantly clear that the voice of the Good Shepherd sounds nothing like the voices of Michael Pearl or Gary Ezzo.

 

After you have become steeped in the words of Jesus, begin to study the Bible for God's own references to mothers. The Old and New Testaments are full of beautiful imagery: God sees mothers of infants as ever patient, loving, gentle, and protecting of their little ones. You will not be able to see biblical motherhood in the same light again. God's mothers, as portrayed by the imagery and symbolism of Holy Scripture, do not carry plumbing supply line.

 

You can be delivered from a cycle of abuse. You can go back to being who you were before you heard of the Pearls.

 

What a great post! I was caught up in this type of church for about 6 months when my oldest was 3-4. I am so glad that the Lord brought me out of the stuff. Which also explains my knowledge of Pearl and other "Christian" teaching of whipping them into obediance.